Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-09-16
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The chart below shows how frequently people in the USA ate in fast food restaurants between 2003 and 2013.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Student answer (Band 5.0)
The bar graph illustrates the frequency of eating at fast foos restaurants among people in the USA from 2003 to 2013. Overall, it is noticeable that people were eat once a week experienced the highest percentage, whereas restaurant recorded the lowest percentage of people who was not come there throughout the period.
Turning to the details, in 2003, approximately 4% people preferred to go restaurant daily. In addition, 30% number of people recorded eat food in each once a week or twice a month. Moreover, nearly 11% to 16% people were go to restaurant several times in a year.
On the other hand, in 2006, people who visited twice a month in a restaurant recorded decreaed, whereas others showed fluctuations over the period. In comparison, in 2013, food lovers who visited once or twice a month in the USA were increased from 25% to 33%. Lastly, others people had little fluctuations between years.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The response attempts to cover the main features of the chart, noting the highest category (eating once a week) and mentioning changes over the period such as the rise in those eating once or twice a month. However, the task achievement is significantly undermined by confusing phrasing, inaccurate referencing of data points, and a weak overview. For instance, the sentence 'people were eat once a week experienced the highest percentage, whereas restaurant recorded the lowest percentage' is grammatically garbled and hard to follow. Furthermore, several data points are misreported or vaguely described, such as claiming people visiting once or twice a month 'recorded decreaed' in 2006 when the figure actually dropped from 30% to 25%, and then stating they increased to 33% in 2013. The overview fails to provide a clear, coherent summary of the overarching trends. Consequently, this performance aligns with Band 5.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The text is organized into basic paragraphs, starting with an introduction followed by body details. However, the logical progression is frequently disrupted by poor cohesion and awkward sentence construction. Transitional markers are either misused or absent, resulting in a disjointed flow. For example, phrases like 'Turning to the details' and 'On the other hand' are applied mechanically without proper logical links to the preceding statements. Referencing is often unclear, as seen in expressions like 'others people had little fluctuations between years', where it is difficult to determine which specific categories are being referred to. Paragraphing is attempted, but internal cohesion within the paragraphs is weak, leading to a choppy and confusing read. This performance fits the Band 5 descriptor.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, frequently impeded by word-choice and collocation errors. The student relies on simple terms and often uses incorrect parts of speech, such as 'people were eat', 'recorded decreaed', and 'others people'. Spelling mistakes are also present, including the typo 'foos' instead of 'fast food'. There is a limited attempt to use less common vocabulary like 'fluctuations' and 'approximately', but these are not used with sufficient accuracy or precision to elevate the lexical score. The range of vocabulary is minimally adequate for conveying simple ideas, but the persistent errors cause difficulty for the reader, placing it firmly at Band 5.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The response demonstrates a very limited range of grammatical structures, relying heavily on simple sentences and failing attempts at complex constructions. There are frequent grammatical errors throughout the text, including tense confusion, missing auxiliary verbs, and incorrect verb forms (e.g., 'people were eat once a week', 'who was not come there', 'people were go to restaurant'). Punctuation and sentence boundaries are sometimes handled poorly, leading to run-on or fragmented clauses. These frequent errors cause considerable strain for the reader and mean that simple sentences are often the only ones successfully executed without severe mistakes. This performance corresponds to a Band 4.5, rounded to 5.0 based on standard matching, though strictly reflecting Band 5 limitations.
See this exact question answered at other band scores — the same prompt compared across bands.
Browse more IELTS Writing model answers or get your own writing scored by the same AI examiner.